Are you ****ing kidding me? Pedophiles prey on children and take away their rights and by doing so commit crimes. Gay couples in love do not violate anyone's rights by being homosexual. This is a terrible and inaccurate analogy. I expected something low out of you, Garfy, but not this low. Good job.

So just shut the hell up with your horribly bigoted thinking.

QFE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

The argument that allowing same sex partners to marry is akin to pedophilia is ignorant and irrational fallacy meant only to malign and argue ad hominem with a straw man rather than to demonstrate a rational reason for disallowing same-sex marriage. One does not permit or allow the other and only the ignorant or the disingenuous would maintain such a position.

Also QFE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue Nine

I expect this kind of faulty reasoning out of Garfield, but I gave you much more credit than that, Totenkopf. Perhaps I was mistaken to do so.

Unfortunately, Niner, you were indeed mistaken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Now, since I wasn't talking about pedophiles (I cited polygamists), would you like to try again?

Sorry, but that still doesn't do your argument any good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Your gibe about appeal to tradition is also misplaced. I merely stated the truth.

Doesn't make it 'misplaced'. Just because your fallacy may have some truth to it does not make it a logically sound argument. Sorry though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Anytime you wish to truly move society from one type of behavior to another, you HAVE to convince a large enough portion of it that your way is better. So far, you haven't.

Luckily that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about whether or not gay marriage should or should not be legalized. Whereas you are discussing why it has not yet been nationally legalized.

You are correct; they do apply, and for the same reasons it can also be said that there is no logical reason why polygamy between a group of consenting adults should be illegal, either.

Moral issues aside, polygamy is a legal nightmare.

What if one of them wants to divorce? Well, then how to you split up the belongings? How do the children get split?

Once you introduce another party or more, suddenly things are not as easy as 50/50.

Now, I've seen couples who have been together, but had a third person in the household. While I have nothing against polygamy that works, I just fear for the American legal system when it has to deal with 6 people trying to divorce and split children, belongings, etc.

If we can figure out a way that works, then I'm fine with it. But, as it stands, polygamy just puts too much strain on the legal side of the issue. With the current legal system, it just can't be done. It would require a complete overhaul, which would be expensive, time consuming, and the end result would be legally questionable.

Polygamy and same-sex marriage are different issues and one has nothing to do with the other. I stand by my position that anyone who believes polygamy would naturally follow if same-sex marriage were allowed is an uninformed belief.

This is because, while there is ample evidence that polygamous and polyandrous marriages are socially problematic with increased incidences of abuse and neglect over monogamous marriages, there are no data to support the same charge for same-sex relationships and marriages. I might add, that there are plenty of geographic places where same-sex marriage has existed for at least one generation, so the data would be available.

Therefore, there is ample reason for society to allow same-sex marriage and not polygamous marriages. Therefore, to state that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamous relationships or pedophilia is an ignorant statement.

Under that rational let’s outlaw marriage altogether, because there is no rational reason to deny polygamy now. If you can have a law that only a man and a woman can marry, why can’t you have a law where only two individuals can marry? Then you are not suppressing individual rights. Individual rights are something I believe this country was founded on. To me it is not about a popularity contest, it is not about giving people extra rights, it is about everyone having the same rights.

But that is the point. If marriage is to be open to consenting adults, then why just restrict it to heterosexual and homosexual unions between 2 consenting adults? Gay people fight and abuse one another, just like straights w/in the confines of a married/monagamous relationship. No surprise you'd find problems in a polygamist union. So, if gays are to be officially allowed to marry, why not the other? No one, including Skin, has provided a reason why gay marriage is so important as an issue that the consideration should end there. Maybe spideral was right (ohh, the irony)....just ban marriage. People can then make commitments to one another, draw up contracts defining those commitments and have all the benefits traditionally given to officially married people.

@ender---always with the cheap shots, eh. Nothing changes. Your comments only display your own igorance. No fallacies were successfully demonstrated. Also, my point about societal norms, which clearly went over both yours and r9's head, was related to the subject. You don't need to have the majority of society believe something is ok for it to be enacted into law. Just enough of a plurality. For something to be considered normal by society is different altogether. So, you get an F for comprehension and sloppy logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur

You know, I was just saying to myself that a divorce involving a polygamous marriage would indeed be a legal nightmare.

Yeah, but a lawyer's wet dream.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

What point? Marriage is open to two consenting heterosexual couples today and we do not allow polygamist marriages. What are you worried about that homosexual couples would demand to be polygamist? Otherwise I see no point to this argument.

So I agree either ban marriage altogether or allow everyone the same and equal rights.

What point? Marriage is open to two consenting heterosexual couples today and we do not allow polygamist marriages. What are you worried about that homosexual couples would demand to be polygamist? Otherwise I see no point to this argument.

No, he's legitimately pointing out that polygamist groups and pedophile groups for that matter could use this argument to say that they should be allowed to marry too. Because once you open it for one group, you open it for the others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin

So I agree either ban marriage altogether or allow everyone the same and equal rights.

The difference between the others and marriage between a man and a woman is in order for children to be born. You need one man and one woman to mate and the offspring would be there child, thus in order for there to be a stable situation for that child, you can argue that marriage between a man and a woman is different from the others.

Makes a lot of sense to restrict people’s individual rights in order to prevent the ill conveyed and illogical idea of what might happen. I may get shot, so let outlaw everyone’s right to own guns. Makes perfect sense to me and I thought the conservatives were the ones for keeping the government out of our lives, I guess that means everywhere but the bedroom (oh and our phones).

So, if gays are to be officially allowed to marry, why not the other? No one, including Skin, has provided a reason why gay marriage is so important as an issue that the consideration should end there.

He did, actually. You don't get to say 'nuh-uh' without directly refuting his points. It's a most Garfield-esque tactic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

No fallacies were successfully demonstrated.

Again, you don't just get to say 'no' without backing it up. Allowing gay marriage does not logically cause the legalization of polygamy. You have yet to show how it does because that is the entire crux of your argument. Until you do so, you have committed a fallacy and are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Also, my point about societal norms, which clearly went over both yours and r9's head, was related to the subject. You don't need to have the majority of society believe something is ok for it to be enacted into law. Just enough of a plurality. For something to be considered normal by society is different altogether. So, you get an F for comprehension and sloppy logic.

I understood your point about societal norms. It is true that most of society doesn't consider 'homosexuality' normal and that change will likely come slowly. But this is still not a reason to deny homosexual marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Is ours not a large population? Roughly even split, that it may be. I know, it just... pisses you off. Regardless your feelings on the matter, ce' la vie, this is the way it is.

For now, it's the way it is. However, the proposition before Prop 8 that did away with gay marriage, Proposition 22 in 2000, passed with a 61/39 split. Given the fact that Prop 8 passed with a 52/48 split, it stands to reason that the population is changing their opinion on it. Not quite in the right way yet, but it'll happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Hope? Certainly your prerogative and I'm not taking anything away from that at all. However, I do recall the vaunted Asian societies so many here seem to hold high (TBH myself included at times) have a little something to say about hope. It was in some famous work, The Art of War, Book of five rings, something like that. What IT was, was that 'hope' (as opposed to contentment and happiness with what you are already given in your everyday life) leads to unrealistic expectations and a growing sort of want similar to hunger. A hunger I might also add builds upon itself and is NEVER satisfied...not all that different from the wanting that (left unchecked) snowballs into greed. Basically: Hope leads to insatiable wanting...an argument of the very same for greed I could see even you using against corporate greed and other things. Just something to consider.

I'm sorry, did you just tell me not to hope because some old dead Asian guy made some existential comment on hope? You'll forgive me if I think this is a load of crock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Besides, I don't see you getting all ruffled up about it when it just so happens to go favorably your way.

I am ecstatic when a decision is made to give people their rights back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

So what are you getting all fluffed up like a turkey for? You want to change it and override the vote now? ...yet you accuse your opposition of wanting to be tyrants.

Where did I say this? Please point it out to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Similarly to how you'd say to the opposition, I have for you: That's the way the cookie crumbles. It was a vote, and a vote you lost. Be a sport. Get over it.

I'll remember this. I'll remember to say it to you when the time comes that people see reason and vote to give homosexual couples their rights back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Then you might be interested to know that back in the 60's, gays demanded that they be treated different because they were different. Now they want it all the same again? There is an expression called having your pie and eating it too...Just by-the-by. I'd like to throw it in right here. That's exactly what this is.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain this more fully because I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, other than 'gays shut up because you're queer'.

Under that rational let’s outlaw marriage altogether, because there is no rational reason to deny polygamy now.

You basically got the point. I'm not worried about anyone turning polygamist, hetero or homo. This whole thread really boils down to a question of fairness in the eyes of some people. Shouldn't homosexuals have the right to marry other homosexuals? However, current law does grant heteros and homos the same right.....to marry someone of the opposite sex. It may seem harsh to some, but it's not unfair. When the question becomes why can't same marry same, it continues to beg other questions, regardless of how some people feel about that fact. And keep in mind.....nowhere do I talk about a slippery slop to pedophilia (doesn't involve consenting adults), that's merely the irrational and hysterical jump made by some of those arguing with me. So, even if you want to argue that the "decent" thing to do is to change the law to reflect contemporary progressive ideas, nobody is getting preferential treatment insofar as the current law is concerned.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Okay, lets go over the main three arguments and refutations that we have been over again and again through out the thread in a nutshell:

The "gay marage will lead to Polygamist and child marrages" argument:
-slippery slope fallacy.
-children cannot give informed consent while adults can.
-polygamy is more prone to abuse and neglect and abuse than gay and strait marrages are.
-countries where gay marrrage are allowed have not led to polygamy and child marrages

The "gays shouldn't marry becuase thay can't make babies" argument:
-Marrage isn't solely for the purpose of babies.
-they can adopt
-Infertle people cant have babies either, so would you ban them from marrage?

The "being adopted by gays will make the adopted children gay" argument:
-unsupported assertion

Theese are the most recycled arguments exchanged in this long thread. Can Garfeild and his Friends refute the listed refutations above and go from there instead of restating the same arguments?

You basically got the point. I'm not worried about anyone turning polygamist, hetero or homo. This whole thread really boils down to a question of fairness in the eyes of some people. Shouldn't homosexuals have the right to marry other homosexuals? However, current law does grant heteros and homos the same right.....to marry someone of the opposite sex. It may seem harsh to some, but it's not unfair.

if you look at it from another perspective, heterosexuals are able to marry the person they love/want to get a tax break with/get drunk enough to love/in a vegas chapel with an elvis impersonator with for an hour and homosexuals aren't, which kind of brings me to my next point that marriage is far from sacred now anyway so uh **** it why not

"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite

If I am, in your eyes, using cheap shots, how is this not hypocritical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

No fallacies were successfully demonstrated.

I would be inclined to disagree. Perhaps you would like to explain how ""Afterall, if two gay adults can "marry" than why stop there"" is not a slippery slope argument?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Also, my point about societal norms, which clearly went over both yours and r9's head, was related to the subject.

Ahh, of course. It wasn't that I read and understood your argument, and then ascertained that it was impertinent, it must be that it went over my head. By all means, continue with what you berated me for, your grace.

As Niner said - it wasn't an incorrect point, but it is irrelevant to the argument progressing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

You don't need to have the majority of society believe something is ok for it to be enacted into law. Just enough of a plurality.

Fail to see how this is... even important, actually. You do know this thread is discussing why gay marriage should be legalized (or not) right?

Or is this supposed to be going somewhere?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

For something to be considered normal by society is different altogether.

Brilliant analysis, good sir. Very good contribution, that. Good thing we have you around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

So, you get an F for comprehension and sloppy logic.

Interesting that in this scenario you believe you are entitled to grade me. If this holds true, then I would wager I'd be able to do the same. In my eyes (and believe me, I'm not the only one), you don't get any better of a grade in the logic department.

Also great that I'm getting an F for comprehension - make sure you realize that this means you're getting an F for making rational and topical arguments

EDIT:: Also, the jury came back, and the result is unanimous: this comment makes you an utter asshat.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that from a natural standpoint it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, if one or both are sterile so be it, and with the fertility clinics you seem to advocate, they can produce children via artificial means from both parents, still semi-natural.

Well consider this, while radical feminists want this, do you particularly want men to no longer have a purpose for existing?

I imagine most guys wouldn't mind lesbians having affairs though despite being married to a guy, heck I doubt most guys would even be jealous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

The truth is that there are no solid arguments against gay marriage. That's why we get the same rhetoric over and over again. Also see: abortion, religion, etc.

There is no valid reason for gay marriage either, in fact I can argue gay marriage is discriminatory to straight people. Gay people can marry with a heterosexual right now and still carry on their love life, heck they don't even have to marry right now and many insurance companies will carry their partner.

If two straight people try to get together and file for joint insurance, if they aren't married they can't put their partner on the coverage. Classic discrimination.

Sure there is. Without a valid reason to prohibit it, the practice is discriminatory and therefore an equal rights violation. If there is a valid reason, then I'd love to hear what it is, however I'm going to pull another Carnac and predict that we're only going to see more rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

in fact I can argue gay marriage is discriminatory to straight people. Gay people can marry with a heterosexual right now and still carry on their love life, heck they don't even have to marry right now and many insurance companies will carry their partner.

If two straight people try to get together and file for joint insurance, if they aren't married they can't put their partner on the coverage. Classic discrimination.

Errr, your "beef" with insurance company policy has absolutely nothing to do with systematic discrimination carried out by the government.

I was driving at: that for someone so grateful to have any of these rights (even if it isn't everything you want), you sure don't seem to act it. Considering especially what other nations may or may not do to gays. Just saying.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Anything relevant to the topic now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

The question still stands: You want to change it and override the vote now? That just doesn't seem very...democratic.

I deleted my previous post because I thought it was inflamatory, but you've hit a nerve.

You told me to "get over it".

Oh, thank you. All my troubles are now gone now that you've told me to "get over it".

I'm sure the slaves back in the day would just stop asking for rights if you told them to "get over it". I'm sure women would have stopped asking for voting rights as well.

I could give a **** that it was democratic or not. It was deemed unconstitutional, and then a vote was forced on us to place a ban that had already been deemed unconstitutional.

The constitution exists to make sure things like this don't happen. If everything was democratic, we'd be a Direct Democracy, not a Republic like we are now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

This is not rudeness: You are entitled to your opinion (no matter how hot headded). All's I'm saying is that as bad is it may seem... it could *always* be worse. That's all.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that from a natural standpoint it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, if one or both are sterile so be it, and with the fertility clinics you seem to advocate, they can produce children via artificial means from both parents, still semi-natural.

1. They cannot produce children in all cases. Some people are just sterile.

2. Saying something is wrong because it is unnatural is wrong in multiple ways, which I will now prove using a logical syllogism:

FTR, saying something is unethical because it is unnatural is a fallacy unto itself, but I'll explain an actual counterargument for you since you seem to gloss over any posts talking about fallacies.

I. What is natural?

A. Definition: 'Natural' can be defined in one of many ways: something normal in nature, or something that is not man-made (ie grass instead of clothing), or something that occurs within the laws of nature (ie conforming to Newtonian physics).

1. Natural in the 'law' sense
a. Since these laws merely describe events and do not prescribe behavior, homosexual behavior can in no way break natural 'law.' Any scientist will tell you that if it is observable, then it conforms to a law. Gases do not act as Boyle's Law commands; Boyle's Law describes how gases act. If homosexuality in fact did break a law, the law would be proven false, and thus, rewritten to include the observable phenomena.

2. Natural in the 'not artificial' sense
a. This is a rather easy one. You would never say that clothing should not be used because it needed man's influence in order to exist. You would not actually be typing anything, since in this sense, computers and even the running of electricity to houses would be artificial and thus unethical.

----Obviously, people arguing this do not believe one of the first two. They usually are referring to this:

3. Natural in the 'normal' sense (or, as a corollary, that any use of organs in a way contrary to their primary purpose is unnatural)
a. If you are saying that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn't happen in nature (or is not required by nature for a purpose) then I'd like to first direct you to the list of species that sometimes practice homosexuality. You can find this list on Wikipedia, or by simply using Google. Also, the uncommonness of an action does not make it any more or less ethical. Shakespeare's works were of uncommon quality - they are usually praised for this very same reason. Same holds true for breaking a world record, etc.
b. If you are saying that homosexuality is against primary natural purpose, ie no child is developed, you've opened a can of worms. Things that fall into this category include: sterile people having sex, old people having sex, sex for pleasure, oral sex, masturbation, and etc. I hope that you're not going to tell us that you feel all sex that does not result in the formation of a zygote is immoral? Therefore, if you do believe this, you would also view IVF as moral, since in that case, a zygote is formed? Do not fail to see all of the repercussions of this argument. A woman's eyes are for seeing. Is it unethical for her to use them for flirting? or for her profession, as in modeling?

Summary: Things that are unnatural (in the second and third definitions) can actually be more beneficial than the things that are natural. Thus, saying that Gay Marriage is "unnatural" is a specious argument.

He did, actually. You don't get to say 'nuh-uh' without directly refuting his points. It's a most Garfield-esque tactic.

Actually, you're incorrect. He merely pronounced sentence on Garf and called him ignorant. There was effectively nothing to refute. Garf can defend himself. Seeing as how you ignore points/arguments that are inconvenient and then proceed to move on to name calling/flaming, you're hardly in a postion to bitch about technique.

Quote:

Again, you don't just get to say 'no' without backing it up. Allowing gay marriage does not logically cause the legalization of polygamy. You have yet to show how it does because that is the entire crux of your argument. Until you do so, you have committed a fallacy and are wrong.

Once again, you (and that *asshat* _EW_---coming from him that's probably a compliment ) are quick to slot people's arguments into your little pigeon hole w/regard to what they said. I've no obligation to defend myself against such strawmen. Read what I wrote and stop imposing your agenda driven inferences about what I said and then we can continue. Till then, you're just wasting everyone's time.

Quote:

I understood your point about societal norms. It is true that most of society doesn't consider 'homosexuality' normal and that change will likely come slowly. But this is still not a reason to deny homosexual marriage.

Then you clearly missed the point. My point wasn't whether or not societal norms were a reason to legalize anything. I demonstrated that as well. You're clearly viewing everything only through the lens that it's a direct argument for or against. Given that you never set really tight parameters for the discussion in your initial post, you'll have to forgive me for thinking the conversation was a little more nuanced than that.

Quote:

If I am, in your eyes, using cheap shots, how is this not hypocritical?

What does that have to do with anything? You started off your diatribe with a cheap shot and I noticed. What of it?

Quote:

I would be inclined to disagree. Perhaps you would like to explain how ""Afterall, if two gay adults can "marry" than why stop there"" is not a slippery slope argument?

Well, surprise, surprise. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply. The argument made is basically based on the concept of "equal protection under the law". How allowing homosexuals the right to marry but not polygamists is merely replacing one form of bigotry for another. How rational is that when we're talking about consenting adults? Why would that even bother you anyway? You don't like polygamy?

Quote:

Ahh, of course. It wasn't that I read and understood your argument, and then ascertained that it was impertinent, it must be that it went over my head. By all means, continue with what you berated me for, your grace.
As Niner said - it wasn't an incorrect point, but it is irrelevant to the argument progressing.

Oh, it was inconvenient to your collective diatribe. So sorry, m'lord.

Quote:

You don't need to have the majority of society believe something is ok for it to be enacted into law. Just enough of a plurality.
Fail to see how this is... even important, actually. You do know this thread is discussing why gay marriage should be legalized (or not) right?
Or is this supposed to be going somewhere?

Merely explaining my position, exalted professor.

Quote:

EDIT:: Also, the jury came back....

As if the verdict of a kangaroo court were somehow relevant. Priceless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmac

if you look at it from another perspective, heterosexuals are able to marry the person they love/want to get a tax break with/get drunk enough to love/in a vegas chapel with an elvis impersonator with for an hour and homosexuals aren't, which kind of brings me to my next point that marriage is far from sacred now anyway so uh **** it why not

Well, from yet another perspective, even heteros aren't always allowed to marry those people. He/she could already be married to someone else, underage, etc... Big freaking deal. Life's unfair sometimes.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Actually, you're incorrect. He merely pronounced sentence on Garf and called him ignorant. There was effectively nothing to refute.

Except for when SkinWalker showed how one does not logically cause the other, rendering Garfield's arguments fallacious? Logic does not hold that polygamy follows gay marriage, which was Garfy's entire argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Once again, you (and that *asshat* _EW_---coming from him that's probably a compliment ) are quick to slot people's arguments into your little pigeon hole w/regard to what they said. I've no obligation to defend myself against such strawmen. Read what I wrote and stop imposing your agenda driven inferences about what I said and then we can continue. Till then, you're just wasting everyone's time.

Then you clearly missed the point. My point wasn't whether or not societal norms were a reason to legalize anything. I demonstrated that as well. You're clearly viewing everything only through the lens that it's a direct argument for or against. Given that you never set really tight parameters for the discussion in your initial post, you'll have to forgive me for thinking the conversation was a little more nuanced than that.

Well, surprise, surprise. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply. The argument made is basically based on the concept of "equal protection under the law". How allowing homosexuals the right to marry but not polygamists is merely replacing one form of bigotry for another. How rational is that when we're talking about consenting adults? Why would that even bother you anyway? You don't like polygamy?

Again, gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. If you'd like to discuss polygamy there is a thread on it already, so please do it there. Any further mention of polygamy in this thread will be deleted as spam.

As far as gay marriage is concerned we need to have an amendment that every eight to twelve years, or however long it'd be till a new group of voters that have turned eighteen would vote on it. All at once every state individually would vote to either have gay marriage or not. If you marry in a state, are of the same gender, and lets say that state were to afterwards ban gay marriage. It shouldn't mean your marriage is invalid. And you should be able to re-marry in all states regardless of a ban on gay marriage. Besides re-marrying is simply a reafirming of the decision you both already made. You both already have a civil union. It'd make no sense to say your married at one point and not at others.

But if you want to marry and do not before the ban of course you cannot marry in that state to which it is banned. But like I said if you are re-marrying then you should in all states. Let people live their lives. No government official state or national officials should dictate the will of the people. The American public should vote and decide. The only thing the elected officials have a part in this amendment is signing into law for that state for the eight to twelve years whether gay marriage is legal or not in that state.

I mean guys I at least think this makes sense. I think we should be fair to both sides as best as we can. Let's say a couple of the same gender in California wants to remarry in Hawaii while on vacation. They are already married. So let's not say they can't reafirm a decision that was already approved of. Let the people decide. Not the state or federal government. An elected official has their one vote. They shouldn't take their one vote and run over the will of the people. But in this case to be fair one side should be given time for their decision to count and the other can have their turn too. But lets not disenfranchise those who made their decision prior to a ban. I'm trying to be fair. Does this sound fair? Regardless of your moral stance you should uphold the law and Constitution. I mean that's the job of the elected official when they take the oath. Just trying to be fair.

What does that have to do with anything? You started off your diatribe with a cheap shot and I noticed. What of it?

And I then noticed that you did the same. What of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Well, surprise, surprise. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply.

...oh, okay then. I guess you operate above rules of logic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

The argument made is basically based on the concept of "equal protection under the law". How allowing homosexuals the right to marry but not polygamists is merely replacing one form of bigotry for another. How rational is that when we're talking about consenting adults? Why would that even bother you anyway? You don't like polygamy?

Actually no, that's not the point. My opinion on polygamy is moot since the argument is fallacious and based on an incorrect premise.

Thus, even if I were a proponent of polygamy, I would not use that argument. I tend to try to stay away from logical fallacies when making a logical argument. Sorry that you don't.

Perhaps you could get back to the topic (ie gay marriage?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Oh, it was inconvenient to your collective diatribe. So sorry, m'lord.

Didn't say that it was inconvenient. I said it was useless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Merely explaining my position, exalted professor.

Irony abounds. How interesting that you begin grading people based on posts and then turn around and use 'professor' as a tongue-in-cheek title.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Well, from yet another perspective, even heteros aren't always allowed to marry those people. He/she could already be married to someone else, underage, etc... Big freaking deal. Life's unfair sometimes.

So your argument is "Let's not push for any advancements in policy at all?"

Wow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue Nine

Again, gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. If you'd like to discuss polygamy there is a thread on it already, so please do it there. Any further mention of polygamy in this thread will be deleted as spam.

^^AKA why your argument is both useless and annoying, Totenkopf.

_EW_

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmac7142

welp, **** it then i guess life's unfair that's that we should just stop trying to make things better because **** it totenkopf says ****'s unfair

As far as gay marriage is concerned we need to have an amendment that every eight to twelve years, or however long it'd be till a new group of voters that have turned eighteen would vote on it. All at once every state individually would vote to either have gay marriage or not.

This is the most backward and asinine idea I have ever encountered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD Nihil

If you marry in a state, are of the same gender, and lets say that state were to afterwards ban gay marriage. It shouldn't mean your marriage is invalid. And you should be able to re-marry in all states regardless of a ban on gay marriage. Besides re-marrying is simply a reafirming of the decision you both already made. You both already have a civil union. It'd make no sense to say your married at one point and not at others.

I stand corrected.

So ever.****ing.year you would would vote to either make gay marriage legal or illegal? That is in no way how lawmaking is made. How on earth is that idea

a) Valid
b) Based on the legal precedents of the USA
c) not completely contrived??

Thanks for your input. That's what I'm saying I do think there needs to be an amendment that gives both sides a chance, but at the same time doesn't disenfranchise same sex couples already married. I want to be fair. You have a better idea please share. It was just an idea. I'm just trying to think of some way to make it fair for both sides while trying to make the wishes of the majority count while at the same time giving others a chance next time. If you think the time between each vote should be lengthened please tell what you'd have it be. Let's hear your idea that makes it fair for both sides.